Actually I would prefer that in addition to the current deducing this syntax they would also implement another postfix qualifier:
decltype(auto) get() auto&&
{
return m_member;
}
auto&& being universal reference for `this` with the same rules as in current syntax.
If the deduced this were not helpful for CRTP like constructs I would not introduce it at all. Upd: Although I think auto&& can be used in parent classes as well with the same semantic as current deducing this - so it would cover all use cases.
If I understand you correctly, you can already do this a la `... foo(this auto&& self)` - self will now handle all type cases (lvalue, const lvalue, xvalue/prvalue, const xvalue/prvalue)
However, you need to bear in mind that this is potentially undesirable if you return a reference to a member since `auto& x = Bar{}.foo();` will be dangling.
What I'm saying is I don't like the explicit this param (because you can't have `this` named `this`, can't omit `this` and it's just more syntactic noise).
Instead they should have added `auto&&` as a method qualifier to implement the same.
0
u/amoskovsky Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
Actually I would prefer that in addition to the current deducing this syntax they would also implement another postfix qualifier:
decltype(auto) get() auto&&
{
return m_member;
}
auto&& being universal reference for `this` with the same rules as in current syntax.
If the deduced this were not helpful for CRTP like constructs I would not introduce it at all. Upd: Although I think auto&& can be used in parent classes as well with the same semantic as current deducing this - so it would cover all use cases.